Opinion | Letter to the Editor
To the Editor: Despite efforts, still not eye-to-eye
October 6, 2009 - 1:48amTo the Editor:
Re: “To Debate Evolution Is To Appear Nutty — Why?,” Opinion, Oct. 5
The author’s effort to find common ground between “liberal moderns” and “fundamentalists” is admirable but misguided. Those who believe that worth objectively attaches to human beings due to their belief in a creator are in a fundamental sense not in accord with the beliefs of “liberal moderns.” The latter assign affirmative value, whereas the former assign value “in spite of.”
What does that mean to me? The “liberal modern” view says to each individual, “You are valuable,” without exception or qualification. The fundamentalist (and usually religious) view says to each person, “You are valuable, in spite of the fact that you are gay, a minority, a woman, old or something else.” The fundamentalist, then, rather than affirming the value of each human being, holds up his own superiority over the person valued because of his own point of view. The liberal modern simply values other human beings by choice, without any tacit implication of self-superiority. No wonder we cannot get along.
Francis Sohn, law
Christian Basis for Human Value
As a conservative Christian who holds to the inerrancy of Scripture, I might be described by the writer as a “fundamentalist”. Here are my perspectives on the innate value of human beings.
Rather than believing that we should value humans because “worth objectively attaches to human beings due to their belief in a creator”, I believe humans have objective worth because they have been created in the image of God: it is not a person’s belief in a Creator, but my belief in a Creator, that causes me to value them.
This belief that all people are created in God’s image has driven Christians to fight for the rights of all people. Those holding the “liberal modern” view can certainly value human beings, but what is the basis of this value? If they value them simply by “choice”, what is the rationale of this choice? Is it just as valid to choose to not value some people – the unborn, disabled, etc.? If humans are just a different shoot of the evolutionary tree than chimpanzees, dogs, rats, and amoeba, can any distinction be made between them? If it is “intelligence” that imparts worth to life, what is the value of a severely brain damaged human? However, if each human is a special creation of God and valuable to him, the decision to value them is not solely our “choice” but a commission from our Creator. Is this not a more valid basis for value than sharing similar DNA?
To conclude, Christians’ beliefs, rather than causing them to not value those who do not share those beliefs, should be the foundation for their valuing of all people. Indeed, this foundation should be much firmer than the “choice” of the liberal modern.
Nathan Maichel, MEng ORIE